Book Review: Understanding Four Views on Baptism

Book Review: Understanding Four Views on Baptism (John Armstrong, general editor)

Baptism. One might think the subject is very straightforward, but the reality is that it is a complex subject in Scripture and among Christians the world over. This book lays out four major views on baptism within Protestant Christianity: Baptist view, Reformed (Presbyterian) view, Lutheran view, and Christian Churches/Churches of Christ view. The forward and post-script by the editor were also very well written, stressing the unity that the four contributors do have in Christ and in other doctrine and expressing hope for helpful discussion and tolerance towards fellow Christians who have a different view. All four contributors have searched the Scriptures and become convinced of their viewpoint, and we must not sneer at those who interpret Scripture in a way that is different from ours - when these are views which have been held by many, many faithful Christians who love the Word of God. While we might disagree, we should at least seek to understand one another so that we might still have unity in Christ. This is a difficult task (as the editor confesses) but we look to Heaven where one day all shall be made clear.

 

In each section the contributor for each view gives his defense and then the three other contributors respond.

Baptist View: Thomas Nettles

I fully agree with Nettles’ Biblical and historical arguments for immersion, as well as for believers only baptism.

I did feel like the author shared his opinion more than Scripture at times (one responder did point out exactly that), especially in that he tried too hard to simplify baptism to just a symbol so that while the symbolism is certainly rich, the rite itself doesn’t really mean anything. It’s so simplified that it’s merely an initiation rite into the local church membership. This is unfortunate as I believe Scripture infers that there is more than “just symbolism” in baptism.

Reformed View: Richard Pratt

Pratt seemed to quote more from Confessions than from Scripture (although I will fairly note that the Confessions cite Scripture as their source), and I understand that Pratt quoted them because they summarized nicely what (the writers though) Scripture teaches, however, it would have been better to have more Scripture exposition. This was rather unfortunate. However, I have read other books/listened to lectures on this particular view that did use a lot of Scripture and so I certainly understand the reasonable Biblical arguments.                                                                                                                   

The first half of the chapter focused on baptism as sacrament, most of which I would agree with. Baptism as a “sacrament” is defines as such: “Reformed theology views baptism as a mysterious encounter with God that takes place though a rite involving physical elements and special ceremony. Through this encounter, God graciously distributes blessings to those who participate by faith and also judgment to those who participate without faith”. Furthermore, “[s]piritual realities occur in conjunction with baptism, but the Scriptures do not explain in detail how baptism and divine grace are connected. Thus, Reformed theology speaks of the connection as a ‘sacramental [i.e., mysterious] union.’”

Second half of the chapter focused on the covenantal nature of baptism. I do not agree with the “Covenantal” view of Scripture as taught by Reformed/Presbyterians. Also, if in baptism, the person does “undergo ‘the circumcision done by Christ’ as they are ‘buried with him in baptism,’” to apply this to infants who have no faith is, as far as I’m concerned, a slap in Christ’s face. Christ doesn’t save halfway. He is the perfect sacrifice and the perfect Savior. When he saves, he does so completely. To put baptism (the sign and seal) before the profession and actual conversion is a reversal of all that the New Covenant was intended to do.

Christian Churches/Churches of Christ view: John Castelein

Castelein also made a good argument for immersion and believers only. He also views baptism as more that “just” a symbol (opposed to the Baptist view) which I appreciate. However, while he avoids the word “sacrament” this is exactly how he views it, and for all his dislike of Roman Catholicism he makes the same mistake as they do. Whereas the Reformed view views baptism as a sign and a seal of salvation, Castelein ties baptism so tightly with salvation that it is in danger of becoming confused with having saving power itself. He calls baptism the “Biblical occasion of salvation”. While he denies the error of “baptismal regeneration” on the grounds that they do not baptize apart from a confession of faith, because he ties baptism and salvation so together, one could argue (and he admits some in his churches do) that apart from baptism one cannot be saved at all, even babies or those who intend to be baptized (which in the end is the same error because it is not Christ alone who saves, it is Christ + baptism). In his response to Castelein, Pratt (Reformed view) very rightly points out Castelein is confusing salvation (which is multi-layered and includes justification, faith, repentance, yes also baptism but also ongoing obedience and ultimately glorification) with justification (becoming right with God through the sacrifice of Christ). Also, whereas the Reformed view leaves the sacramental grace that comes through baptism a “mystery,” Castelein tries too hard to define what the Scriptures don’t make clear – specifically how precisely baptism relates to the process of salvation. Despite his desire to be strictly Biblical (a quality I certainly admire) he is still holding to presuppositions that affect his interpretation of Scripture.

Lutheran View: Robert Kolb

I put this view last even though it’s third in the book because it’s similar to other views, and I felt concerns were addressed better there. To be frank I agreed with very little in this section and I feel Kolb made similar mistakes as Reformed and Christian Churches. To summarize, their view of baptism is closer to Christian Churches in that they tie it very closely with salvation, but they also baptize infants (for some reasons similar to Reformed but still different because of how they connect it with salvation). One big difference between Lutheran and Reformed is that the latter leaves mystery and Lutherans try too hard to define what actually happens in baptism. In tying baptism and salvation so closely, they also blur the line between justification and human response/faith/works (also the same mistake as Christian Churches). In light of this, the fact that they baptize infants rather blows my mind and brings to the surface even more concerns than one might have with the Reformed view of infant baptism.

 Conclusion:

I would definitely recommend reading this book if you are studying baptism as it very well lays out the four main views that are out there. There are, however, more than four views. Beside another major view like Anglicanism or the various views within some Presbyterian or Methodist circles, I myself would consider myself a “Reformed Baptist” – a hybrid between the Reformed and Baptist (with some appreciation for Christian Churches as well in how seriously they take baptism). I have a higher/sacramental view of baptism (very close to Reformed, not quite as extreme as Christian Churches view), but am firmly convinced of believers-only baptism. Furthermore, I see water baptism as a sacrament of the Church that signifies and seals the work of Christ in the believer. It is not to be confused (or fused) with justification (one being made right with God) but is nevertheless a crucial part of the “process of salvation”. In the sense that you can say that “faith saves” you can also say that “baptism saves” but we also need to be careful to qualify that. Baptism is not necessary for entrance into heaven (only justification does that) but is required for a person who professes Christ to be accepted into the Church/be recognized as a Christian (I personally would add that a believer should be baptized prior to participating in the Lord's Supper as well). And obviously, if a professor refuses to be baptized that is a sign that they are not saved since they are refusing a very clear command of Christ. There is a sense in which a believer prior to baptism does “lack” something, much like a couple prior to the marriage ceremony but with their marriage license still lacks something to make their marriage “official”. What exactly baptism does or what grace it bestows is more of a mystery, but we must not try to define things that Scripture leaves as a Divine mystery. To put it simply: We are justified by grace through faith alone (Romans 3-5 & Ephesians 2), but baptism is a such crucial element to our status and walk with God that to be really Biblical, one cannot fully be recognized as a “true Christian” without it. 

 

FOR FURTHER STUDY: Please see THIS POST on Scripture texts and more on baptism (and at the bottom of that post there is a further study/resource list if you want to study/read more on the subject).